Kansas is running into a serious debate with regard to its ignition interlock program for drivers convicted of DUIs. The devices, which prevent cars from starting unless the driver passes a breathalyzer test, have been in use in the state for some time, but a proposed amendment would remove a requirement forcing convicted drivers who are sentenced to ignition interlock usage to report to the state when they have acquired the devices.

Laura Dean-Mooney, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is urging Kansas lawmakers to to eliminate that amendment.

According to a report in the Wichita Eagle, Senator Mary Pilher Cook offered the amendment because one of her constituents informed her that they were ordered to use the ignition interlock device for a year, but could not, because they didn’t actually own a car.

“I don’t want people to drive drunk,” Cook, a Shawnee Republican, told the press. “I want our roads to be safe; I just want to find a solution for everybody.”

Lance Kinzer, Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman believes the amendment will be either removed, or at least altered, when his members analyze it during the coming week.

Under current Kansas law, motorists convicted of a second DUI, who refuse a breathalyzer, or who are caught with a 0.15 blood alchohol level (the legal limit is 0.08) must use the interlock device for a year or more. The devices cost $50-$70 to install and then there are $65-$75/month in fees. After installatation, the company that provided the device notifies the state, and the actual sentence begins.

The problem is that compliance has been low since the notification requirement began in July, 2006. because many drivers chose to risk getting pulled over, and didn’t bother installing the interlocks at all.

Kansas House Assistant Minority Leader, Rep Jim Ward (D-Wichita), a member of the House Judiciary Committee said he thought the DUI Commission should review the amendment before it gets added to any bill. The commission is currently engaged in a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s drunk driving laws.

Ward told the press, “There are a few … people without a vehicle, but they are very few. We don’t want to throw the baby and the bathwater out.”